Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Azkadellia stated in the OP that there was NO editing done to either photo....I don't understand why you felt it necessary to point it out again kdog....your post reads a little on the snarly side.
Azkadellia stated in the OP that there was NO editing done to either photo....I don't understand why you felt it necessary to point it out again kdog....your post reads a little on the snarly side.
Ridiculous. In order to go from the digital domain to the analog domain (something you can see with your eye), there is processing done. Doesn't matter whether that processing is done in the camera, or out of the camera; it has to be done, by definition. The film version had had even more processing. First it was processed by a film lab. Second, it was scanned into a jpg and who knows what kind of processing that software does. But ignoring all that, the person whose wedding it is couldn't care less about what processing was, or was not used. All anybody cares about is the final results.
I will agree that my post came across a bit snarly in retrospect. However, I felt the points needed to be made and I'm not always one to mince words.
Can you post bigger size? From what i see i'm guessing 2nd shot is digital. I also wonder why such difference in white balance? Base on WB alone, i can assume #1 is film.
Kdog, I think you missed the point of the experiment completely.
The POINT was to get best shot possible with NO editing. I controlled the film processing, as well as the negative scanning, so I know exactly what was done in that respect, which was nothing more than process standard, and scan with NO edits from the negative scan station. ( I have the options in the scanning software to edit on the spot if desired, I choose not to. I want to see it 'as it was shot')
The POINT was to see how it looks with NOTHING done. Which IS the measure of how one is judged as a professional photographer. If you have to do a boatload of editing, you might want to study your craft further! I'm NOT saying that all pros DON'T edit, but most only need very minor edits if any at all...the gentleman who suggested our little experiment, shoots film exclusively and rarely edits a damned thing, call it what you want, but I call it being experienced enough to know what it should look like, which is why I took his suggestion to heart. When the elders of this craft are gone, that knowledge is gone too. If I can learn anything from those wonderful people, then I'll become a serious sponge to get the knowledge!
The SECOND shot, IS film. It would be most 'useable' without an edit. The digital WOULD require editing to 'look good' and thereby be 'useable'. Without editing, that shot would end up in the trash can. THAT was the point. And I'm more inclined to give ear to the man who suggested the experiment in the first place. He's been shooting for over 50 years. I do believe he would know what he is talking about. And having now done the experiment, (five of us did, and saw similar results) I can absolutely see the point he was trying to impart to us stubborn youngsters...(and I'm the 'youngest' at damned near 49.)
Hell good editing software could make Clarence the cross eyed lion a good photographer. That was NOT the point of the experiment.
Last edited by Azkadellia; 08-04-2008 at 12:21 PM..
I think the point is people are starting to rely tooo much on computers to correct the work... I feel that this takes away from the photographer. Who needs a pro any more when anyone can point & shoot & let computers do all the work. & whats happening to the Artistic Eye!!
I think the point is people are starting to rely tooo much on computers to correct the work... I feel that this takes away from the photographer. Who needs a pro any more when anyone can point & shoot & let computers do all the work. & whats happening to the Artistic Eye!!
That's not true at all katie, even with film there are processes in the darkroom that are used to enhance a photo.
Can you post bigger size? From what i see i'm guessing 2nd shot is digital. I also wonder why such difference in white balance? Base on WB alone, i can assume #1 is film.
Frame 2 is the film shot. Frame 1 is digital.
The reason there is such a difference is simple: Film is very forgiving.
Think about that a second. Before the magical days of digital, what did we all do? We loaded, set our ISO, read the light, set our apertures, our shutters, and we SHOT.
Now, we not only have to set that (unless we're being lazy and using Auto mode) we MUST consider white balance on digital cameras, because light is NEVER consistent from one location to another. UNLESS you are shooting in a controlled studio environment, where the lights would always be the same.
These two images were shot at 9 a.m. in the morning, on a nice sunny day. The ISO's were 200. F/5.6 at 1/125. The results were dramatically different. Which absolutely FLOORED those of us who chose to participate in the experiment.
The five of us shot with Nikons,(2) Canons,(2) and Pentax(1) film and digital models, and every last one of us got blown away by what we saw. We all expected to see very little if any difference at all. (Cocky little shytes that we are) All the digitals were 10mp or higher, set on Manual, and were DSLRs.
The film models, were all automatics, but were shot in Manual modes.
Kdog, I think you missed the point of the experiment completely.
The POINT was to get best shot possible with NO editing.
Oh, I got your point all right. However, you missed mine completely. There is absolutely and unequivocally processing done to both images, either in-camera, in photoshop, in scanning software or a combination of these. That much is a given. However, the digital was done poorly. And not just the processing, but the actual exposure was bad.
And there's no such thing as "standard" processing. Photographers usually speak in terms of "work flow". There are volumes on top of volumes written about it. MY workflow takes seconds to process an image. It's rather amusing to hear you tell me that I should examine my workflow, when you are comparing it to film processing.
I think the point is people are starting to rely tooo much on computers to correct the work... I feel that this takes away from the photographer. Who needs a pro any more when anyone can point & shoot & let computers do all the work. & whats happening to the Artistic Eye!!
I see Katie's point here. A photograph could indeed start as an artistic inspiration, and then again, it could be shot on the fly, and either way turn out well. You never know where it will come from.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
